State v. Sandoval

• Decision Date: 30 July 1975
• Docket Number: No. 1841,1841
• Citation: 1975 NMCA 96,539 P.2d 1029,88 N.M. 267
• Parties: STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert SANDOVAL, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: Court of Appeals of New Mexico

Page 1029

539 P.2d 1029

88 N.M. 267

STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert SANDOVAL, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 1841.

Court of Appeals of New Mexico.

July 30, 1975.

Rehearing Denied Aug. 20, 1975.

[88 NM 267] James K. Ribe, Zamora, Ribe & Rael, Santa Fe, for defendant-appellant.

Toney Anaya, Atty. Gen., Mark Shoe-smith, Asst. Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, for plaintiff-appellee

OPINION

HENDLEY, Judge.

Convicted of homicide by vehicle while driving recklessly contrary to §§ 64--22--1 and 64--22--3, N.M.S.A.1953 (2d Repl. Vol. 9, pt. 2, 1972), defendant appeals. Defendant assigns many points for reversal, some of which are briefed in accordance with Rule 9 of the Rules Governing Appeals, § 21--12--9, N.M.S.A.1953 (Int.Supp.1974), and some of which are not. We dispose of the points in the order that they are raised and affirm.

Defendant first contends that the trial court erred in admitting evidence that defendant had been drinking before the accident because it was never shown that defendant was intoxicated nor that his driving ability was impaired. The rule in criminal cases in New Mexico is that evidence of intoxication is but a circumstance to be considered by the jury in deciding the issue of reckless driving. State v. Sisneros, 42 N.M. 500, 82 P.2d 274 (1938). Yet defendant contends that the only evidence bearing at all on the issue of intoxication was in the testimony of an attendant at a garage at which defendant fixed a flat tire about an hour before the accident. He testified that he had seen defendant and another drinking from a quart bottle of beer. He actually saw the defendant take only one sip.

Evidence of intoxication need not be sufficient to support a conviction for driving while under the influence contrary to § 64--22--2, N.M.S.A.1953 (2d Repl. Vol. 9, pt. 2, 1972). State v. Sisneros, supra. Therefore the question becomes how close the evidence of intoxication has to come to being sufficient for a conviction under § 64--22--2, supra, in order to be admissible in a prosecution for violation of § 64--22--3, supra. In our opinion, any evidence of drinking is relevant as a circumstance for the jury to consider on the issue of reckless driving. See State v. Loyland, 149 N.W.2d 713 (N.D.1967); Huff v. State, 68 Ga.App. 799, 24 S.E.2d 227 (1943). Of course, evidence that a defendant took one drink of beer and then was in an accident would be insufficient to support a conviction. But common sense and common knowledge teaches us that drinking and driving do not mix. Evidence of drinking does have a tendency to make the existence of carelessness or lack of due caution more probable than it would be without the evidence. See R.Evid. 401, § 20--4--401, N.M.S.A.1953 (Rpel. Vol. 4, 1970, Supp.1973). Thus evidence of drinking is relevant and is but one circumstance to consider when the prosecution is for reckless driving under § 64--22--3, supra.

Defendant secondly contends that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of the presence of marijuana seeds in the car that defendant was driving. We do not believe the error, if any, to be properly preserved for review in this instance. The state's attorney, toward the end of the first day of trial, asked an investigating officer whether he saw any contraband in defendant's car. The officer answered, 'some marijuana seeds.' Defendant objected on the grounds of illegal search. The trial court excused the jury and the matter of search was argued and ruled upon adversely to defendant. The defendant then stated two additional grounds of objection, one of which was that the evidence was irrelevant. The trial court made a preliminary ruling that the evidence was, in fact, irrelevant and that unless the state showed him some law, he would not allow further questioning with respect to the marijuana seeds. Trial was then recessed for the day and when resumed the following day, there was no further mention of the marijuana. Under these circumstances, it was incumbent upon defendant to move to strike the testimony complained of or to have asked for a curative instruction. R.Evid. 103(a)(1), § 20--4--103(a)(1), N.M.S.A.1953 (Repl. Vol. 4, 1970, Supp.1973). He did neither. Defendant thirdly contends that the trial court erred in failing to give two of his requested instructions. These instructions would have precluded the jury from considering the evidence of liquor and marijuana since this was a prosecution based on driving recklessly and not driving while under the influence. Both of the instructions referred to the alcoholic beverages. Both were incorrect statements of the law under State v. Sisneros, supra. Since the tendered instructions were erroneous statements of the law, it is not error to fail to give such instructions. State v. Wilson, 85 N.M. 552, 514 P.2d 603 (1973).

Defendant next contends that there is insufficient evidence to support his conviction. Specifically he contends that there was no evidence showing a wilful and wanton disregard of the rights or safety of others. Defendant does not argue that the sufficiency of the evidence for a conviction under §§ 64--22--1 and 64--22--3, supra, is a question of first impression in New Mexico. He seems to recognize that the quantum of proof required for such a conviction would be similar to that required for a conviction of involuntary manslaughter under prior law. See State v. Romero, 69 N.M. 187, 365 P.2d 58 (1961); State v. Rice, 58 N.M. 205, 269 P.2d 751 (1954); State v. Turney, 41 N.M. 150, 65 P.2d 869 (1937). Rather, defendant contends that the facts of his case are not in any way analogous to the facts of the previous cases in which convictions have been upheld.

The sum of the evidence in the instant case was that at the precise time of the accident, defendant was travelling at a speed in excess of the legal limit (approximately 45 m.p.h. in a 30 m.p.h. zone) on the main street of Raton. The decedent's vehicle drove out onto the main street after stopping at a stop sign. Defendant revved up his engine, slammed on his brakes, left 74 feet of skid marks and hit the decedent's vehicle broadside. The main street in Raton is heavily trafficked especially during the summer tourist season during which the accident occurred. There was abundant evidence from many witnesses that during the hours and minutes immediately preceding the accident, defendant was engaged in showing off a 'hot-rod' type vehicle. He was driving up and down the street at high speeds, switching in and out of lanes, straddling lanes, turning corners very rapidly and making illegal U-turns. In addition, defendant would alternately rev up and slow down the engine and attempt to 'leave rubber' when he passed young members of the opposite sex walking along the street. He also had been drinking. It is our opinion that this course of conduct shows, without doubt, that defendant was operating his vehicle carelessly and heedlessly in wilful and wanton disregard of the rights and safety of others, and without due caution and circumspection and in a manner so as to be likely to endanger persons and property. We accordingly find the evidence sufficient to sustain the conviction.

Defendant next contends the trial court erred when it stated it would allow the state to cross-examine him regarding the fact that he did not have permission to drive the car. Defendant did not own the car that he was driving at the time of the accident. The state put on the owner of the car to testify to the car's accessories, power, flashiness and the like. The state also wanted the owner to testify that the defendant was driving the car without his permission. The trial court ruled that it would not allow the state to go into the fact of the stolen car as part of its case in chief but that if defendant took the stand, it would be a proper subject to cross-examination. Defendant ultimately chose not to testify. It is defendant's contention that such evidence would have been irrelevant and highly prejudicial.

Since defendant chose not to take the stand any answer which we would give would of necessity be based on speculation and would be advisory. This court does not give advisory opinions. Bell Telephone Laboratories v. Bureau of Revenue, 78 N.M. 78, 428 P.2d 617 (1966); State v. Herrod 84 N.M. 418, 504 P.2d 26 (Ct.App.1972).

Defendant next contends that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of defendant's driving conduct throughout the entire day of the incident. The accident occurred at approximately three o'clock in the afternoon. The record does not support defendant's contention. The only evidence of driving conduct admitted was that occurring immediately before the mishap and that evidence was admissible under R. Evid. 404(b), § 20--4--404(b), N.M.S.A.1953 (Repl. Vol. 4, 1970, Supp.1973), both to show defendant's mental state and also lack of accident. See State v. McCallum, 87 N.M. 459, 535 P.2d 1085 (Ct.App.1975).

As part of his statement of proceedings, defendant claims two additional rulings of the trial court to be error. They are the failure to instruct on specific intent and the failure to give five of defendant's requested instructions relating to the proximate cause of decedent's death. However, there is no further mention of either of these allegations of error elsewhere throughout the brief. As these points, if such they be, are neither argued nor supported by authority, they are considered abandoned. Novak v. Dow, 82 N.M. 30, 474 P.2d 712 (Ct.App.1970). Further, the last seventeen lines of defendant's brief are devoted to the detailing of some thirty alleged improprieties occurring at issue of cumulative or fundamental error we have already held not to be error; some were unobjected to; some we entirely fail to find in the record. If, by these lines, defendant is attempting to raise the issue of cumulative of fundamental error under State v. Vallejos, 86 N.M. 39, 519 P.2d 135 (Ct.App.1974), it will suffice to say that we have...